Author
|
Topic: Our voting system and possibility of the MAtrix (Read 1080 times) |
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
 |
Our voting system and possibility of the MAtrix
« on: 2003-08-12 20:54:45 » |
 |
I was looking over the voting system, and noticed something that seemed strange to me.
On the question "Does God Exist" many people had no problem saying "God Cannot Possibly Exist"
but then on the question: "Are we in the Matrix?" people voted primarily for "We are probably not in a simulation"
Here's my question: How are these two questions any different from one another. Couldn't a Theist simply say that the Universe is God's Simulation?
One notch up on the respect meter if anyone can convince me that these two questions are not fundamentally the same.
Bill Roh
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.44
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
 
|
|
Re:Our voting system and possibility of the MAtrix
« Reply #1 on: 2003-08-13 04:26:15 » |
|
We have as, you know, discussed how the idea of a god that is both omniscient and omnipotent isn't internally consistent and raises whole sets of logical paradoxes which violate the basic 'fabric of the universe.' As such, there are arguably certain yardsticks we can measure the plausibility of god by.
The matrix is a more difficult question, since those yardsticks would also be part of the matrix and therefore unreliable. However, there are certain ways to approach this issue - see my wiki entry at http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/BrainInAJar
Disclaimer: I didn't vote on the matrix issue at all and my vote on god reflected a more agnostic answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Our voting system and possibility of the MAtrix
« Reply #2 on: 2003-08-13 04:55:19 » |
|
Possible spoiler material below. Please vote first at [What is your stance on the existence of the Christian god (omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly benevolent creator of the universe)? ] and [ What is your stance on the statement that reality as we know it is in fact a simulation? ] before scrolling down for comments.
[ vvv Scroll Down vvv ]
(a) The question of the "Deity" was specifically about the Christian Cooky Monster with all of its known contradictions, inconsistencies and deficiencies. Thus it is easy to eliminate it from the realm of the even vaguely possible in terms of the rules of the Universe (whether real or simulated is irrelevant to this answer, see (ii) below) in which we find ourselves, even though the question of the possible existence of some other creatures we might deem to be "gods" may be unknown but tending to the implausable (as with (b) and (i) below).
(b) In contrast, the "simulation", in the "are we in a simulation question", is undefined, and there is nothing that we know which would preclude us from being inhabitants of an undetectable simulation (although we should note that there are a very limited range of data which might be taken as supporting being in a simulation (limits of precision, equivalency between information and energy, limits of space-time and energy), making this, at best a weakly supported hypothesis.
However, a little cognition should allow you to perceive that (a) relates to an impossiblity within the rules (physical) of the Universe as we undertand them, or the system of logic as we have defined it, while (b) relates to a possibility, to which we cannot ascribe likelihoods with any reliability (as unless we could attempt to build such a simulation ourselves, we cannot test any probabilities we might care ascribe to the possibility). Thus two clearly differentiated classes of question. While we cannot ascibe likelihood to (b), reasoning tell us that:i) Do not multiply entities unnecessarily (from Ockham's Razor) suggests that while we cannot know, we should still consider (b) as being less than likely (tending towards false) until we are compelled to postulate it through some evidence (and the strength of the evidence is a judgement call).
ii) Whether the "idea of being in a simulation" is right or wrong, it should make no difference to how we live, as we are in any case, artifacts of the simulation of self-consciousness by an inefficient cellular computer. Naturally, a difference which does not make a difference, is not a difference*. Thus, while (a) is, on rational grounds, demonstrably false, (b) requires an answer of unknown or unprovable (but tending to the somewhat improbable due to (i) above).
*Until recently, I would have added that any entities capable of building a simulation congruent with my perception of the Universe would presumably also have sufficiently high ethical standards not to engage in creating something capable of causing the degree of pain we see amongst us. Unfortunately, HK Henson overthrew this, by observing that all of the evidence points towards us eisting in a simulation run by utterly insane, antisocial criminal elements. Or as Kharin put it, "Reality as an especially perverse form of peepshow... it all fits..".
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
|
Re:Our voting system and possibility of the MAtrix
« Reply #3 on: 2003-08-13 13:33:35 » |
|
Kharin:
While I am well familiar with the paradoxes involved in our Christian description of God, I have to say that in giving as much leeway to people as I can in their definition of God is probalby more realistic. If there were a god, I doubt very much that people would be capable of describing such a god accurately, and it would indeed seem omniscient and omnipotent, As well as many other things. When i think of the requirements for god, i tend to think along these lines: It must be our creator, and the creator of all things. It must be sentient. It must act deliberately. It must violate the 2nd law. (which is one reason I am certain it does not exist)
I don't worry about the omniscient argument because I do not think the future is set or in any way pre-exists - and therefor there is no future to know, a god does not need to meet that standard, IMO, it's an artificial standard. As for omnipotence - having it and exercising it are too different things. It seems that we are setting the absolute standards, and then asking people who beleive in such stuff to explain why god does not act absolutely. We give no wiggle room to a potential god.
Hermit: If we are assuming the Christian diety alone. Then I have to agree with you. I'll also agree that since we are leaving simulation so undifined, that there is a lot of room for interpretation.
The only issue I suppose I would have is that we are treating the god concept harshly, but seem to be receptive to a simulation and do what we can to leave the question as open as possible. If David is reading - was it a choice, or simply the way you thought out the question?
So I'll raise your rep a notch Hermit. Kharin is already pretty high.
Thanks guys
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Our voting system and possibility of the MAtrix
« Reply #5 on: 2003-08-13 14:14:01 » |
|
Quote from: BillRoh on 2003-08-13 13:33:35
The only issue I suppose I would have is that we are treating the god concept harshly, but seem to be receptive to a simulation and do what we can to leave the question as open as possible. If David is reading - was it a choice, or simply the way you thought out the question? |
The question was designed specifically to address the concept of God as defined by Christian theologians.
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.44
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:Our voting system and possibility of the MAtrix
« Reply #6 on: 2003-08-13 15:13:13 » |
|
Quote:| "The only issue I suppose I would have is that we are treating the god concept harshly, but seem to be receptive to a simulation " |
Of course, in the event that we were speaking of a pantheist conception of god, wherein such an entity is essentially coterminous with the universe itself, then the issue becomes more problematic. That said, Puttnam's arguments would still apply in that case.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Our voting system and possibility of the MAtrix
« Reply #7 on: 2003-08-13 16:14:19 » |
|
I would add to Kharin's note, that no matter how "extreme" we may be when disposing of the god concept, we could hardly be responsible for more extremism than the god concept itself. Nobody here is likely to be sufficiently nasty - nor, giving the tens of thousands of years during which man has inflicted god ideas upon himself and his neighbors, are we likely to live long enough to achieve parity.
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
